BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.301 of 2016

Date of Instt. 19.07.2016

Date of Decision: 23.01.2018

Yogesh Dhir S/o Sh. Kasturi Lal Dhir R/o H. No.337, Gopal Nagar, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

1. Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar through its Chairman.

2. The Jalandhar Improvement Trust, Jalandhar.

….….. Opposite Parties

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: Sh. Karnail Singh (President)

Smt. Harvimal Dogra (Member)

Present: Sh. Gurvinder Arora, Adv Counsel for the Complainant.

Sh. Sachin Sharda, Adv Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2.

Order

Karnail Singh (President)

1. This complaint filed by the complainant, wherein alleged that the complainant has applied for the plot in Surya Enclave Extension in 94.97 Acre Scheme of J.I.T. (OP No.1) for a plot measuring 200 sq. ft. At the time of filing application, a prospectus was also issued by the OPs and a layout plan of development scheme of Surya Enclave Extension was also printed on the said prospectus. The complainant had applied for the said plot on the basis of the prospectus, in which it was clearly mentioned in the site plan that 120 ft. road/passes through the colony/plots from having its entrance from Maharaja Ranjit Enclave (another colony of J.I.T.), which was shown to have been ended at fly over (known as Damoria Bridge). The complainant had paid the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- as earnest money for purchase of the plot bearing No.234-D, which was allotted to him and the letter No.JIT/847 dated 06.06.2016 was issued with a hope that there will be a 120 ft. road as mentioned in the layout site plan, printed in the prospectus. However, when a few days ago the complainant has seen the plot, he was shocked to see that there were dumps in the plot and there was no 120 ft road in existence, which was shown in the prospectus, which clearly shows that he has been defrauded by the OPs and that the OPs have received the amount by showing the green pastures. There is no sign of development in the colony, 120 ft road shown in the site plan in the prospectus is not at all existence in the colony and even there is nowhere any sign of development. There is one colony namely Santoshi Nagar near the colony and the proposed colony, in which the plot in question is in existence, is open to the said colony and there is no boundary wall of Surya Enclave Extension, which make the colony segregated from the Santoshi Nagar Colony. Even, there is an area of about 2 kilometers, on which there must have been 120 ft road from Maharaja Ranjit Enclave to Damoria Bridge Flyover. Since, there is no 120 ft. road has been in existence, which clearly shows that the OPs have obtained money by making false publication and false site plan of existence of road, which is not at all in existence at the spot and the same is deficiency in services on part of the OPs and also tantamount to unfair trade practice.

2. The complainant has paid the huge amount of Rs.3,40,000/- from his hard earned money for purchase of the plot with a vein hope that he will construct a dream house for himself, but there is no sign of development in the said colony and there is no road 120 ft. wide in existence at the spot and his hard earned money will be wastage, if he further pay the amount since the false information has been given in the prospectus, which led to his inducement on behalf of the OPs to purchase the said plot. However, all the information supplied by the OPs in the prospectus is wrong and as such, he has got no other option, but to seek refund of his amount with immediate effect. The complainant has suffered huge mental shock, harassment, mental, agony, financial loss on account of the unfair trade practice and deficiency in services on part of the OPs, for which the complainant is also entitled to damages, to the tune of Rs.5 lakh in addition to the amount of Rs.3,40,000/- paid to the OPs at the time of payment of earnest money, which was paid by him on the false representation and inducement and false information supplied by the OPs. The said place is totally unfit for building a house and the dream of the complainant and his family to build a dream house on the property has been shattered, on account of the above said false information and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the complainant has suffered a huge mental tension, harassment and financial loss since the complainant is working as a representative in a pharma company and it was a hard earned money of the complainant, which has been fraudulently taken away by the OPs, by making false promise and false representation and misleading information and accordingly, necessity arose to file the present complaint with the prayer that the complaint of the complainant may be accepted and OPs be directed to pay a sum of Rs.8,40,000/-, which includes a sum of Rs.3,40,000/-, deposited by the complainant and compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of damages, harassment and mental agony.

3. Notice of the complaint was given to the OPs and accordingly, both the OPs appeared through their counsel and filed their joint written reply, whereby contested the complaint by taking preliminary objections that the present complaint is not maintainable in the present form and further averred that the complainant has not come to the Forum with clean hands rather concealed the material facts. The complainant has intentionally not disclosed in his complaint that he failed to deposit the earnest money within time, as such, he became a defaulter and further alleged that as per the Para No.6 of the allotment letter, 1/4^th of the amount is to be deposited within 30 days from the date of allotment to the OP and in case, the allottee fails to deposit the 1/4^th of the allotment amount as mentioned in the allotment letter, the Jalandhar Improvement Trust will have the right to cancel the allotment and forfeit the amount deposited. It is further alleged that the complainant has filed the present complaint with ulterior motive. The complainant has filed this complaint with the aim to prevent the forfeiture of the deposited amount. On merits, the factum in regard to the allotment of the plot, to the complainant is admitted and it is also admitted that the complainant deposited Rs.3,40,000/- as an earnest money, but the remaining allegations as made in the complaint are categorically denied and lastly prayed that the complaint of the complainant is without merits and the same may be dismissed.

4. In order to prove the case of the complainant, the complainant himself tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CA and further tendered another affidavit of the Sh. Vikas Kumar Sekhari as Ex.CB alongwith documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and then closed the evidence.

5. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant, counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 tendered into evidence affidavit Ex.OPA and closed the evidence.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also gone through the case file very minutely.

7. After taking into consideration the over all factors as elaborated in the complaint as well as in the written statement and came on the file by way of documents, which give arise to the effect that the allotment of plot bearing No.234-D in Surya Enclave Extension, to the complainant is not in dispute and even the deposit of earnest money Rs.3,40,000/- is also admitted. The simple allegations of the complainant are that as per inducement of the OP, given in the brochure Ex.C-1 that there is a passage of 120 ft. leads from Maharaja Ranjit Singh Enclave to Damoria Bridge, but when after allotment of the plot, the complainant visited the spot and he find that there is no such 120 ft. road and even there are so many pits in the said area of the colony and as such, the complainant find himself involved by the OP in purchase of the said plot by way of fraud and false information, which is clear cut unfair trade practice.

8. But in order to establish that there is no 120 ft. road in existence or there are pits in the plot, the complainant has not brought on the file any solid and coercive evidence. First of all, the complainant made a reliance upon the brochure Ex.C1, wherein the said 120 ft. road has been layout, but as per version of the complainant, the said road is not in existence at the spot, we think that some time must be given to the OP for development of the scheme. As per documents, the allotment letter was issued to the complainant on 06.06.2016, which is available on the file Ex.C-2 and then complainant himself submitted an application to the OP for refund of the earnest money on 05.07.2016, vide letter Ex.C-3, means within one month from the date of the receipt of the letter, the complainant has approached to the OP for refund of the amount, which itself established that the complainant wants to immune himself from making the payment of 1/4^th amount of the price of the plot and filed the said application within one month, it is not possible for the OP to layout a road 120 ft. within one month rather it took time and so for the concern of pits in the plot are related, same are used to be there whenever new colony is curved out and moreover, the pits are prior to filing an application for allotment of the plot, which could be seen by the complainant, but this is not a fair pretext for getting a refund. The application of the complainant for refund of the earnest money is duly replied by the OP, vide letter dated 15.07.2016 Ex.C-5 that the refund cannot be made as per the term and condition mentioned in the brochure. It is categorically mentioned in the brochure as well as in the allotment letter Ex.C-2 that 1/4^th amount of the price of the plot is to be deposited within 30 days from the date of issue of the allotment letter and allotment letter issued on 06.06.2016, means the complainant has to deposit 1/4^th amount of the price of the plot upto 06.07.2016, instead of depositing the said amount, on the last date the complainant filed an application on 05.07.2016, for refund of the earnest money, which is tantamount, show the malafide intention of the complainant. So, with these observations, we came to conclusion that there is no negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Therefore, we do not find any force in the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the complainant and accordingly, the complaint of the complainant is dismissed with no order of cost. Parties will bear their own cost. The complaint could not be decided within stipulated time frame due to rush of work.

8. Copies of the order be supplied to the parties free of cost, as per Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the record room.

Dated Harvimal Dogra Karnail Singh

23.01.2018 Member President